PRESS CONFERENCE BY middle east mission

Speaking at a press conference at Headquarters today, upon his return from a United Nations-authorized mission to the Middle East region, Terje Roed-Larsen said it was very difficult to reach a ceasefire without “embedding” it in a political deal.  That did not return the situation to the status quo, but radically changed the conditions on the ground, and at the core of that change was Security Council resolution 1559 (2004), and addressing the border issues.

Joined today by two other members of the Secretary-General’s high-level delegation –- Alvaro de Soto, and Christopher Gunness, spokesperson for Vijay Nambiar -- Mr. Roed-Larsen said that, a diplomatic agenda was now opening up.  There was a remarkable consensus, including among the parties, of the need for such a political deal.  There was also consensus that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon must be “fundamentally reorganized”, and there were many players who had to have a say in the “shape and form” of such a force.  Its establishment depended very much on its objectives, which were premature to discuss today.  He was meanwhile awaiting orders from the Secretary-General as to the next steps.

Asked who was going to go to Syria, Mr. Roed-Larsen said that it was the Secretary-General who decided the composition of his missions.

Mr. de Soto, replying to a question about Gaza, said that situation tended to “get lost in the fog of war”.  Gaza was still living under a crisis, which had existed before Hizbollah crossed the Blue Line.  The problem was still festering in Gaza and in the occupied Palestinian territory, in general, since the advent of the new Government, but that had preceded the present dire predicament.

To a question about the possibility of Iran being at the heart of the current situation to detract attention on the nuclear issue, Mr. Roed-Larsen said there were “very strong opinions on this subject”, though he did not heave any independent information regarding those particular allegations.  He reiterated, however, that “there is a very wide perception” on that, similar to what the correspondent had described.

Another correspondent asked about the theory that Syria had also triggered current events, and whether there could be fragmentation of Lebanon, a partition of that nation, with part of the south going to Israel.  She also asked about the possibility of “having internationalization” under the United Nations umbrella.

Replying to the last question, Mr. Roed-Larsen said that, what the correspondent had stated was widely alleged, but, there again, he did not have any independent information.  As for Lebanon’s disintegration, he said that the Government was under pressure, and if the situation continued or escalated, that pressure would mount.  “We cannot allow the collapse of the Government because it would be extremely difficult to establish a new government,” he said.  That was one reason why it was so “incredibly urgent” to establish a political framework leading to a ceasefire, and producing, on the basis of new political parameters in Lebanon, a sustainable ceasefire. 

What efforts were under way by the team to see to it that, at the end of the day, what was concluded in Lebanon was not yet “another impotent republic of dubious sovereignty over a large part of its territory, another correspondent asked.

That was impossible to predict in the middle of a chaotic and unpredictable situation, Mr. Roed-Larsen replied.

Mr. de Soto added that a consensus was clearly emerging on the need for a political framework, and one that addressed the current problems to avoid a return to the status quo.

As for the power plant that was destroyed in Gaza, he replied to another question; he had understood that there was a commitment there to replace what had been destroyed, but that would take months and months.

He said, to a follow-up question, that he had understood that the pipeline, or gas pipe, had resumed flowing at rates judged to be the minimum rates.  The purpose of the continuous and uninterrupted supply of fuel was to ensure that generators, such as for hospitals, sanitation plants, and so forth, were not used as a primary supply source, as those were only back-up systems and could not last for a long time.  The correspondent had highlighted an urgent problem, which needed to be addressed.

Asked about the comments of a senior Lebanese official that his Government would “join the fight”, and about the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour’s suggesting that there might be war crimes charges against Israeli officials and Hizbollah, Mr. de Soto, replying to the second part of the question, said that the High Commissioner had drawn attention to the possibility, which was, as much a warning to those involved as anything else.  But, he was in the “good offices business”, rather than in the “judiciary industry”.

Addressing the first part of that question, Mr. Roed-Larsen added that, if the Lebanese army started fighting the Israelis, it would, thus, represent “a very dangerous escalation of the conflict”.  So, he would urge the Government of Lebanon to “think twice”.  That might also lead to a situation where the sustainability of the current Government in Lebanon would be in jeopardy.

If a solution must include a disbanding of the militia, which had been on the table for a while, what had changed now for Hizbollah that it might be willing to reconsider that? another correspondent asked.  And, what kind of prisoner exchange deal might occur, if any?

Mr. Roed-Larsen said that the very fact that Hizbollah had killed and abducted Israeli soldiers had “created a new political reality, not only in Lebanon, but in the Arab world”.  That had resulted in unanimous criticism in the Arab world, including by the Arab League.  Those events had fundamentally changed perceptions in the Arab world.  Nearly all countries in the region felt that “Hizbollah had put the whole region on the brink of war”, without those countries having any say in it.  That, in itself, would produce enormous pressure on Hizbollah to disband.

Mr. Gunness said that one reason that Hizbollah had gone into Israel was to bring attention to the situation in Gaza.  So, without addressing the question of the occupied Palestinian territory, specifically with regard to Council resolutions 242 and 338, the possibility that ‘1559’, by itself, would be fully implemented was dim.

Saying that Hizbollah had stated different things at different times, Mr. Roed-Larsen added that, if Sheba Farms was liberated, that would lead to disarmament.  That was an important topic in the national dialogue, in which all leaders of Lebanon had participated.  Others had called also for the liberation of Jerusalem before disarmament could occur, so it was hard to say.  Much of Lebanon’s support for Hizbollah was linked to the ‘ Sheba issue”, so, if that was resolved, that would “hit hard” at the justification for a resistance.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record